US Criminal Law/Summary



{|style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Liability of omissions
In criminal law, people may be guilty of a crime based on their failure to act. For example, for failing to stop or report sexual abuse; also, one's failure to report a felony may be a criminal act. A person may also be charged with conspiracy unless he completely and voluntarily renounces participation in that conspiracy. This is a slightly different operation of criminal guilt by omission because the actor is engaged in a conspiracy until he completely and voluntarily renounces his participation. In some jurisdictions, the person may avoid criminal liability by stopping the conspiracy from achieving its aims.
 * }

{|style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Recklessness
Recklessness is one of the three mental states that constitute mens rea. Recklessness shows less culpability than intention and knowledge, but more culpability than criminal negligence. The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur.
 * }

{|style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Strict liability
In general, strict liability is rarely imposed in criminal law. There has been some debate regarding strict liability for criminal offenses, as it removes the mental state (mens rea) as an element of the offense. Several strict liability criminal offenses, however, have been widely approved, such as driving while intoxicated and speeding. The basic point (and underlying societal judgment) is that proof of the act itself beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to show criminality.
 * }

{|style="width:65%;"
 * style="background-color: cream; border: solid 1px gray; padding: 1em;" valign="top" |

Participation
In criminal law those who can be held accountable are those who perpetrate the unlawful act (the perpetrator), and those who somehow aid, promote or encourage the unlawful act (an accessory or aider and abetter). To be guilty as an "aider and abetter" one must somehow, with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, aid promote or encourage the act. Both then are principals in the act and can each be held accountable for the acts of the other.
 * }